Burien planning commissioners briefed on TDR/LCLIP pilot to fund infrastructure and guide housing growth

The City of Burien Planning Commission on Jan. 28 heard a briefing from city staff and consultant Morgan Shook of Eco Northwest on a pilot feasibility study exploring a transfer-of-development-rights program paired with the state’s Landscape Conservation and Local Infrastructure Program (LCLIP).

At the start of the meeting, Chair Shelley Park said the city would receive analyses from the Department of Commerce and outside consultants to assess whether a TDR/LCLIP program could be practical in Burien and what code changes, infrastructure needs and revenue outcomes it might produce.

"Transfer of development rights simply says in certain rural areas we want to conserve, we will offer the opportunity for private interests to sell excess development rights," said Morgan Shook, director at Eco Northwest, describing the basic mechanics: rural owners sell credits (often expressed as potential housing units) and developers in designated receiving areas can buy those credits in exchange for additional capacity in their projects.

Shook said the Puget Sound Regional Council had apportioned Burien 273 development rights for modeling purposes. Under LCLIP, he explained, the county would share up to 75% of the county’s portion of new assessed-value growth inside a locally designated infrastructure area (the LIPA) with the city for up to 25 years, contingent on meeting staged performance thresholds (for example, retiring 20% of allocated credits to begin and achieving roughly 50% by year 10).

"If Burien creates a program, we have to design it to retire at least 20% of those 273; roughly 56 credits," Shook said, noting the thresholds are part of statutory performance rules and that specific terms can be negotiated in interlocal agreements with King County.

Presenters outlined three candidate receiving-area categories that the study will analyze: middle‑housing zones (R2/R3), multifamily and mixed‑use corridors (Ambaum, Boulevard Park) and a North‑of‑NERA employment‑oriented area. The LCLIP law limits the LIPA to no more than 25% of the city’s assessed valuation in the year it is created, a constraint staff and commissioners cited repeatedly in choosing study boundaries.

Shook described eligible uses for LCLIP funds—capital projects such as roads, utilities and public spaces, limited affordable‑housing infrastructure (horizontal utilities, not vertical construction) and, unlike some tax‑increment laws, certain operations and maintenance costs. He said the team will produce feasibility estimates of how many credits could be retired under different incentive packages and what scale of infrastructure funding that could produce over the 25‑year window.

Commissioners pressed on implementation details. One asked whether credits are limited to residential projects; Shook replied that credits commonly map to housing‑unit entitlements in sending areas but a receiving‑area code can allow credits to offset other dimensional controls (FAR, commercial floor area, parking) in commercial projects.

Several commissioners raised concerns that enabling more density and raising assessed values could aggravate affordability pressures in some neighborhoods. "That would make some of those neighborhoods even more unaffordable," a commissioner said. Shook and staff responded that increased values are a general effect of infill and that middle‑housing strategies and carefully calibrated incentives are part of the program’s intent to moderate affordability impacts.

Commissioners also asked about safeguards so a single developer cannot hoard credits and create outsized density; Shook said the primary safeguard is city code (limits on how many credits may be redeemed on a given parcel) and noted other cities use fee‑in‑lieu arrangements or city‑facilitated purchases to simplify the market for smaller developers.

Staff and the consultant said the next deliverable will be a detailed report that estimates likely retired credits under different incentive packages, projected revenue, suggested LIPA boundaries and recommended code changes for commissioner review and public engagement.

The commission provided map and policy feedback (for example, including transit corridors and Boulevard Park infrastructure needs) and invited staff to refine the study assumptions and return with a revised analysis at a future meeting.

What’s next: staff and consultants will complete the feasibility analysis and return to the commission with revenue estimates, recommended LIPA boundaries and draft code concepts for further public discussion and possible ordinance drafting.